At 04:57 PM 10/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Don Wiss wrote:
>>
>>> To me Amadeus is a troll that gets his intellectual kicks out of
>hassling
>>> meat eaters and trying to convert them to his way of eating. Just like
>>> there are a couple guys that hang out in the rec.food.veg newsgroup
>and
>>> hassle the vegetarians for their way of eating.
>>
>>I don't see it this way at all.  Personally, I have no interest
>>in becoming a vegetarian but I nevertheless find many of
>>Amadeus's arguments challenging and significant, as should anyone
>>who wishes to emphasize the gathering aspects of the
>>hunter-gatherer lifestyle....
>
>>Todd Moody
>
>Yes, I agree.  Amadeus posts some very interesting information about some
>of the foods he eats.  They appear to be very much based in ancient diet
>philosophy, at least in the respect that the foods were around a long
>time ago.

That would be great if this was a "natural food" list but it is
specifically a paleolithic diet list which would seem to preclude alot of
the food Amadeus is eating.  He can eat it if he wants but I take exception
at his discussing it on this list.

>IMO the genetic enhancement of feedlot animals and vegetables cannot be
>ignored.  Neither can we suggest the total lipid and lipid compositions
>of modern feedlot animals as being like "the real thing" paleo wise.
>Cows are a very un-paleo animal, because they have only existed for a
>short while on the evolutionary scale.  When cows and other animals are
>exclusively fed grains, corn, etc, they develop the same and/or very
>similar symptoms that people do.  Increased carcass fat and unfavorable
>lipid profiles.  Whether or not ancient man consumed large amounts of
>large animals for large time periods might be up for debate.  But it
>definitely appears that wild game is very unlike modern agricultural
>animals.  These are central points that Amadeus discusses.

I think it is a stretch to call modern animals "very" different and "very"
un-paleo.  Certainly the cow more resembles its ancestors than all of our
modern fruits and vegetables.  It seems that fat is highly prized in most
traditional cultures and people went out of their way to secure it.  Inuit
would let their dogs eat the lean parts of animals they killed and focus on
the fatty meats.  (Fat of the Land, V steffanson)  Most of the critisisms
of beef on this list tend to be speculative and backed by not much more
than the hot air behind them.  We need to be more exact.  I would prefer
range fed beef but dont mind corn fed.  The fact that the domesticated
animals have more fat does not seem to be a problem.  Again, Inuit eat 80%
calories by fat.  What are we worrying about?  Are the altered fat profiles
in beef significant?  If you would listen to someone who would sell you a
bottle of flax oil, you would think so.  Probably just eliminating
vegetable oils and eating fish a couple times a week would be sufficient.
What else are we talking about?  Muscle is muscle, organs are organs and
have changed little in evolution.  The same cannot be said of different
vegetable and fruit hybrids.

>Instead of complain and point fingers (and call people trolls) why don't
>those people post some data to support their views?  Or, maybe those
>people have a priori view points and agendas of their own?
>
>Maybe this mailing list should be for Neanderthin following people only,
>like the charter says.

Imagine that.

<snip!>
>James Crocker

Wade Reeser